oecd_itf_kauppila_2011_sp201101_ten stylised facts about household spending on transport
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
1/17
1
No. 1/2011
TEN STYLISED FACTS ABOUT HOUSEHOLD SPENDING ON TRANSPORT1
Jari Kauppila, Administrator
Joint Transport Research Centre of the OECD and the International Transport Forum
INTRODUCTION TO DATA
Although it is generally accepted that transport is a major consumption item for households and it
has been more or less stable over time, little is said on the more detailed composition of transport
expenditure across regions and household types by socio-economic categories. This note looks at the
household consumption (spending) of transport related goods and services mainly across the
International Transport Forum member countries by different socio-economic factors. The findingsshow that while the share of spending on transport has remained relative stable over time, there are
great variations on spending by different socio-economic groups which needs to be taken into
account in designing policies.
Data on household consumption in this paper are based on two sources: household budget surveys
(HBS) and national accounts data (NA). The HBS is a survey which is run on a sample of households in
a country. In all the countries, sharing common accommodation and expenditures is a prerequisite
for a group of people to be considered a household. HBSs are usually carried out every five years.
Eurostat has collected, aggregated, and published this data for the EU countries on a five-year cycle
(latest data being from 2005).
National Accounts data are compiled through a variety of statistical sources; such as HBS, business
surveys, foreign trade statistics and value-added tax statistics. NA presents only the final total
consumption expenditure of households, consisting of expenditure on goods and services incurred
by resident and non-resident households on the economic territory. Evolution of the final
consumption expenditure of households allows an assessment of purchases made by households,
reflecting changes in wages and other incomes, but also in employment and in savings behaviour.
HBS and NA data differ to some extent for a number of reasons. The HBS deals strictly with
households and all the information is gathered directly from them. There may be some doubts on
the accuracy in reporting on what is considered as consumption. Nevertheless, countries have taken
steps to harmonise their methodology, often resulting in high-quality results. More importantly, HBS
includes breakdowns normally not included in the NA, including information on income, place of
residence, and other characteristics of the reference person.
Data in this paper come from the OECD and Eurostat databases together with additional HBS data
from Japan, United States, Mexico and China. The OECD national accounts data include total
household consumption of vehicle purchase, operation of vehicles and purchase of transport services
since 1970. Eurostat HBS data, on the other hand, are more detailed, including detailed consumption
data by socio-economic factors for 2005. Because these data may be exposed to possible errors due
to missing observations and low response rates, some caution should be exercised when interpreting
individual country data.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent positions of the OECD or the
International Transport Forum.
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
2/17
2
Fact 1. Housing, transport and food are the main household budgetary drivers
Housing, transportation and food are the main household budgetary drivers in practically all of the
countries where data has been available. Housing still accounts for the main part of consumption
expenditure in most of the countries, while in few countries food accounts for the largest share ofhousehold spending. However, in more than ten of the 34 countries in Figure 1, transport is the
second largest consumption item, larger than money spent on food.
Figure 1. Household consumption in selected countries in 2005 (% of total spending)
Sources: For the EU, Eurostat Consumption Expenditure of Private Households; For Mexico, INEGI
Household Consumption Survey; For the USA, BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey; For Japan, Statistics
Bureau Family Income and Expenditure Survey. Note: data for EU-27 is an estimate. Figure is
illustrative and some variations are due to differences in classifications and methods used.12
The main lesson here is that transportation expenditures ought not to be studied in isolation as there
are relationships in consumer expenditures across commodity categories. Ferdous et al (2010)
suggest that households seem to adjust even food consumption patterns to compensate for the
increase in travel expenditure. Households first cut savings then eat-out less and purchase less
expensive food. Only then is vehicle purchase affected (postponing purchase or buying a cheaper
car). Often buying cheaper fuel or travelling less are considered as the last option.
1 Footnote by Turkey. The information in this document with reference to Cyprus relates to the southern part of the
Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognizes
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of
United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the Cyprus issue. 2 Footnote by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Commission. The Republic of
Cyprus is recognized by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this
document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus
12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Bulg
aria
Rom
ania
FYR
OM
Lithuania
Poland
Slov
akia
Cro
atia
Ja
pan
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Tu
rkey
La
tvia
Netherlands
CzechRepu
blic
Ireland
EU
-27
Italy
Belg
ium
Portugal
Swe
den
Germ
any
France
UnitedKingdom
Denm
ark
Me
xico
Hungary
Cyprus
Slovenia
Finland
Austria
Luxembourg
M
alta
UnitedSt
ates
Nor
way
Miscellaneous goods and services
Restaurants and hotels
Education
Recreation and culture
Communications
Health
Furnishings, household equipment and
routine maintenance of the house
Clothing and footwear
Food and non-alcoholic beverages
Housing, water, electricity, gas a nd other
fuels
Transport
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
3/17
3
Fact 2. Share of transport on total household spending has remained relatively constant over time
Household consumption on transport has remained relatively stable in terms of its expenditure share
in the OECD countries since the 1970s. Households spent on average around 13.5% of their
expenditure on transport related goods and services in the OECD countries in 2005. There arevariations between countries but, as Figure 2 illustrates, the share has remained fairly constant over
time, between 10-15 percent.
Figure 2. Transport share of total household spending in the OECD countries 1970-2008 (%)
Source: OECD Annual National Accounts, Volume 2, 1970-2007 (2008 prov). Detailed aggregates (in
millions of national currency).
Although the share has remained relatively constant, the volume of spending on transport
has more than doubled in the last 40 years in selected countries where data is available
since 1970. A similar trend is observed for housing where in some cases spending has growneven stronger in real terms. The growth in household spending on food has been somewhat
slower (Table 1).
Table 1. Growth factor of household spending on main items 1970-2008 (in constant values)
Australia Denmark France Italy United States
Food 2.3 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.6
Transport 2.7 1.6 2.4 2.7 2.9
Housing 4.1 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.7
Source: OECD Annual National Accounts, Volume 2, 1970-2007 (2008 prov).
0
5
10
15
20
25
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
4/17
4
Fact 3. The share of transport in household expenditure increases with welfare
Data in Figure 3 suggests there is a strong relationship between household spending on transport
and GDP per capita. This means that as the individual welfare (measured as GDP/capita) increases,
the share of money households spend on transport grows as well. GDP per capita in PPP dollars takesinto account the difference in the purchasing power in each country hence improving the
comparability. There are only few outliers from this trend, marked in green and light blue.
Figure 3. Transport spending and GDP per capita 2005 in some OECD and ITF countries (%)
Sources: For the EU, Eurostat Consumption Expenditure of Private Households; For Mexico, INEGI
Household Consumption Survey; For the USA, BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey; For Japan, Statistics
Bureau Family Income and Expenditure Survey. For GDP and population, source OECD.
At household level, income is one of the determinant factors of household transport spending as
already suggested above. On average, the highest income quintile households spend around 1.8times more on transport (as a share of total spending) than the lowest income quintile in the EU.
Data in Figure 4 further suggests that there is a strong correlation between the level of spending and
the spread of spending between income groups. Countries where the difference between the highest
and lowest quintile is large generally have a lower overall ratio of household spending on transport
and vice versa. This suggests that as welfare increases (both household level and country level) not
only does the spending level increase, but the differences between income quintiles get smaller.
Figure 5 looks at the actual level of monetary spending by adult equivalent per household (how much
is spent by one adult person) in the EU. An adult in the highest income household spends more than
four times more on transport compared with an adult in the poorest 20% of households.
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
%
GDP / capita (PPP $US)
Luxembourg
NorwayUSA
Iceland
AustriaFinland
Malta
Slovenia
Cyprus
Mexico Hungary
Portugal
Switzerland
Japan
Netherlands
Bulgaria
FYROMRomania
Turkey Latvia
Estonia
CroatiaGreece
Czech Rep
Korea
Spain
Italy Australia Ireland
Poland Slovak Rep
Lithuania
New Zealand
SwedenGermanyBelgium
CanadaUK
Denmark
Average
Average
Trend
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
5/17
5
Figure 4. Transport spending by income level in 2005 (% of total spending)
Figure 5. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros) (red=EU27)
0
5
10
15
20
25
l
ri i
Trkey
l
Lxe
r
Est
i
FY
Slvei
rt
l
Lithuania
l
ilt
ite
i
ti
E
-
er
y
e
rk
z
li
eli
I
lLtvi
r
y
t
lS
ee
il
J
iteS
ttes
stri
S
i
%
Fifth quintile
Fourth quintile
Third quintile
Second quintile
First quintile
x4
x1.2
x1.8
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
First quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Fifth quintile
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
6/17
6
Fact 4. The main driver of household spending is the ownership (and use) of cars
On average, households in the OECD countries spent 48% of transport expenditure on operating
personal transport equipment, 35% on purchase of vehicles, and 18% on transport services in 2007
(Figure 6). The main driver of household transport spending is the ownership (and use) of cars,accounting for around 80% of all household spending on transport. There are variations in the
composition of the expenditure that could be explained by the level of taxation, income, degree of
urbanisation and density of public transport network. As Figure 7 illustrates, there have been only
small variations over time in the composition of spending in most of the countries, except in Korea,
where spending on vehicles and operation of them has increased dramatically during the last 40
years. This reflects the rapid motorisation of the Korean society.
Figure 6. Household expenditure on transport by cost item in 2007
Source: OECD
Figure 7. Evolution of the transport spending structure 1970-2008 (%)
Source: OECD
Two cost items clearly stand out: purchase of cars and fuel. This is a consistent pattern in almost all
countries. Together, these two items account for around 50-75% of household spending in EU
countries (Figure 8). To compare, 73% of transport spending in Japan is related to private cars
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SLOVAKREPUBLIC
KOREA
FRANCE
POLAND
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
ITALY
SWEDEN
CZECHREPUBLIC
NETHERLANDS
AUSTRALIA
FINLAND
UNITEDKINGDOM
UNITEDSTATES
SPAIN
HUNGARY
GERMANY
LUXEMBOURG
NORWAY
ICELAND
MEXICO
IRELAND
GREECE
CANADA
DENMARK
Transport services
Operation of vehicles
Purchase of vehicles
0%
50%
100%USA KOREA ITALY FRANCE DENMARK AUSTRALIA
1970 2008
Transport services
Operation of personal
vehicles
Purchase of vehicles
197 0 2008 197 0 2008 1 970 200 8 1970 2008 1970 2008
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
7/17
7
(Statistics Bureau), while in Mexico the figure is 61 % (INEGI). In the United States the purchase of
cars and gasoline together account for more than 65% of transport expenditure (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Detailed breakdown of transport spending in the EU countries
Source: Eurostat
Figure 9. Household spending in the USA 2005
Source: US HBS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Romania
Poland
Slovakia
Estonia
Latvia
Croatia
Italy
CzechRepublic
Turkey
EU-27
Netherlands
Greece
Spain
Belgium
Portugal
UnitedKingdom
Denmark
Ireland
Hungary
Sweden
France
Cyprus
Austria
Finland
Slovenia
Malta
Norway
Luxembourg
Other purchased transport services
Combined passenger transport
Passenger transport by sea and inland waterway
Passenger transport by air
Passenger transport by railway
Passenger transport by road
Other services in respect of personal transport equipment
Spares parts and accessories for personal transport
equipment
Maintenance and repair of personal transport equipment
Fuels and lubricants for personal transport equipment
Bicycles
Motor cycles
Motor cars
42
52
6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Transport services
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
55
43
3
Other vehicles
Cars used
Cars new
46
22
15
11
6 Vehicle finance charges
Other vehicle charges
Maintenance and repairs
Vehicle insurance
Gasoline and motor oil
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
8/17
8
Fact 5. Increased spending on transport by richer households is mainly directed to cars
What, then, determines the growth in spending on transport for the higher income households? As
the following figure suggests, car ownership is the determinant factor of higher spending. As
households get richer they tend to buy a car, a larger car, or a second (or third) car. The sharehouseholds spend on public transport seems to decrease with rising incomes in the EU, while data
for the USA and Japan show some increase for the public transport share in the highest quintile.
Figure 10. Transport spending structure by income group in 2005 (%)
The above analysis is confirmed below in Table 2. It shows the mean spending by adult equivalent by
income group in the EU. An adult in the richest 20% of households spends 2.5 times more on
transport services than an adult in the poorest 20% of households. However, an adult in the last
quintile spends 3.6 times more on operation of cars, and 8.0 times more on purchasing new vehicles
than an adult in the first quintile.
Table 2. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros)
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
Purchase of vehicles 223 324 621 938 1782
Operation of
vehicles
491 602 1018 1464 1782
Transport services 167 151 224 297 418
Source: Eurostat. PPS refer to Purchasing Power Standards which are derived from those expressed
in national currency by applying purchasing power parities (PPP).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Transport service s
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
q1
25 3033 35
45
5656 55
5445
19 1412 11 10
quintile1 quintile 2 quintile 3 quintile 4 quintile 5
3240 40 44 45
6356 55 52 47
5 4 4 4 7
quintile1 quintile 2 quintile 3 quintile 4 quintile 5
11 1623
1525
5456
5659
48
3427 22 26 27
quintile1 quintile 2 quintile 3 quintile 4 quintile 5
Transport services
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
EU-27 United States Japan
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
9/17
9
Fact 6. Transport spending structure and level changes dramatically
only for households with the oldest consumers
In comparison with income, age seems to have slightly less impact on transport spending levels.
There are no great variations between different age groups except for the oldest age group. Indeed,it is only in the households with the oldest consumers that significant changes in the level and
structure of spending occur. Almost without exception, the lowest spending level is for the group of
those over 60 years old in the EU. On average they spend 1.5 times less on transport (as a share of
total spending) than the highest spending age category (often those less than 30 years old). Figure 11
also gives some evidence that the difference between spending by age group is getting larger for
countries where spending on transport in general is lower (slightly downward trend).
Figure 11. Transport spending by age group in 2005 (% of total spending)
The composition of spending changes mainly for those over 60 years. Figure 12 shows that spending
on purchase of vehicles decreases starting from the age group of those above around 40-45 years
old. Both in the EU and Japan, there is a rather significant increase in the purchase of transport
services for the oldest group. Furthermore, in both Japan and EU, the households with the youngestconsumers tend to spend more on public transport services than the middle-aged groups.
Finally, Figure 13 shows the same data for the EU countries in terms of adult equivalent spending. It
confirms the above analysis by illustrating the difference between the oldest age group and other
groups. While there are no great differences between the first three age groups, the group of those
over 60 years old shows the drop in spending.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sweden
Estonia
UnitedKingdom
Norway
FYROM
Netherlands
Ireland
Austria
Germany
EU-27
Cyprus
France
CzechRepublic
Finland
Greece
Slovenia
Denmark
Malta
Turkey
Belgium
Spain
Luxembourg
Croatia
Poland
Latvia
Hungary
Lithuania
Portugal
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Romania
%
Less than 30 years
Between 30 and 44
years
Between 45 and 59
years
60 years and over
x1.1
x1.5
x4
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
10/17
10
Figure 12. Transport spending structure by age group in 2005 (%)
Figure 13. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros) (red=EU27)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Transport service s
Operation ofvehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
Less than 30 yrs 30-44 yrs 45-59 yrs +60 yrs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
q1
42 45 43 41
4243 43
28
17 13 13
30
< 30 30-44 45-59 +60
Transport
services
Operation
of vehicles
Purchase
of vehicles
46 45 44 41 42 39
51 51 51 54 52 54
3 4 5 6 6 7
< 30 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 +70
61
80 76 74 7563
39
20 24 26 2537
< 30 30-39 40-4950-5960-69 +70
Public
transport
Private
transport
EU-27 United States Japan
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Less than 30 years Between 30 and 44 years Between 45 and 59 years 60 years and over
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
11/17
11
Fact 7. Unemployed and retired spend least on transport but still rely on cars
Unemployment and retirement from work affect the transport spending of households. As Figure 14
suggests, the unemployed or retired (normally being the lowest spending group on the graph) spend
around 1.5 times less on transport as a percentage of all spending compared to those inemployment. Again, the spread (or ratio) of variation becomes generally bigger in countries where,
overall, less is spent on transport (trend line).
Figure 14. Transport spending by socio economic group in 2005 (% of total spending)
The composition of transport spending shows some varying results for different regions or countries
(Figure 15). The share of car purchase decreases in the EU for the unemployed, but not for retired
people. The quality of data on this topic is not very good and differences in classifications and other
uncertainties affect the reliability of findings.
Figure 15. Transport spending structure by socio-economic group in 2005 (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ireland
Luxembourg
Cyprus
Denmark
EU-27
Germany
Austria
Italy
CzechRepublic
Belgium
Finland
Netherlands
Spain
Croatia
France
Sweden
UnitedKingdom
Greece
Hungary
Estonia
Slovenia
Turkey
Poland
Bulgaria
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovakia
%
Self-employed
Non manual workers in industry and
servicesManual workers in industry and
servicesInactive population - Other
Unemployment
Retired
x1.5x1.4 x3.9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Transport services
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
Manual workers Non-manual workers Self-employed Unemployed Retired
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
q1
41 38 3929 37 31
50 52 5057
5249
9 10 12 14 11 19
36 41 4346
59 54 5148
5 5 6 5
Transport
services
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
82 8371 69 66 70
18 1729 31 34 30 Public
transport
Private
transport
EU-27 United States Japan
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
12/17
12
Fact 8. Bigger families spend more on transport (and use of car)
Family size and structure obviously explain household expenditure of transport-related goods and
services. The larger the family gets, the more is spent on transport in general. Single-person
households spend on average 1.8 times less (measured as a share of total spending) on transportthan families with two (or more) adults and children. This finding is certainly not surprising. There is
also a strong correlation between the level of spending and the ratio between those spending the
least and those spending the most. The difference between the lowest and highest spending groups
is larger in countries where the share of transport in total spending is smaller (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Transport spending by type of household in 2005 (% of total spending)
Also, not surprisingly perhaps, the bigger the household gets the more is spent on private vehicles
and their use. This is intuitively rather clear, as households with children have more complex
schedules and needs: to take children to school and hobbies, for example. The single-person
households tend to spend more on public transport compared to those with bigger families,
especially in the EU and Japan. Perhaps surprisingly, families with one parent and dependent children
spend most on transport services in the EU in terms of share of total transport spending. This could
be partly due to lower incomes and hence limited ability to buy and use private cars (Figure 17).
Looking at the same data not by household, but by spending levels per adult equivalent in thehousehold, results are similar to above but the differences between household types become slightly
smaller. The size of the household still matters. An adult in a family with at least two adults and
dependents spends around 1.7 times more on transport than an adult in a single person household
(Figure 18). However, there are no great differences between households that have only two adults
or those having adults and dependent children.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Lux
embourg
Norway
Cyprus
Germany
France
Ireland
Lithuania
Austria
Slovenia
Italy
Sweden
Belgium
EU-27
United
Kingdom
Finland
Poland
Greece
Malta
Latvia
Romania
Portugal
Spain
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Hungary
FYROM
Estonia
Bulgaria
Croatia
Slovakia
%
Single person
Single parent with
dependent childrenTwo adults
Two adults with
dependent childrenThree or more adults
Three or more adults with
dependent children
x1.3
x1.8
x4.2
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
13/17
13
Figure 17. Household spending structure by type of household in 2005 (%)
Figure 18. Transport spending of adult equivalent in EU in 2005 (in PPS Euros) (red=EU27)
0%
20%
40%
60%80%
100%Transport services
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
Single person Single parent Two adults Two adults with children Three adults Three adults and children
0%
10%20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
q1
23 1928 27 27 30
5960
62 61 62 57
18 2110 12 11 13
Single 1+dep 2 ad 2+dep 3 ad 3+dep
3744 46 44
5852 48 52
5 4 6 5
Single 1+ dep 2 adults 2+dep
Transport
services
Operation
of vehicles
Purchase ofvehicles
6273 79 77
80 83
3827 21 23
20 17
1 per 2 per 3 pe r 4 pe r 5 per 6 pe r
Public
transport
Private
transport
EU-27 United States Japan
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Single person Single parent with
dependent
children
Two adults Two adults with
dependent
children
Three or more
adults
Three or more
adults with
dependent
children
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
14/17
14
Fact 9. Degree of urbanisation has only a small impact on transport spending shares
in rich countries
The degree of urbanisation seems to have only a small impact on the spread of household
expenditure, especially compared with other socio-economic factors. Overall, households in sparselypopulated areas spend slightly more on transport than those living in densely-populated regions
(measured as a percentage of total spending). However, the differences are small and the variations
between countries are also limited (Figure 19). Not surprisingly perhaps, in terms of spending
structure, those households in densely populated areas spend more on public transport than those in
other regions, likely reflecting the availability of public transport services (Figure 20).
Figure 19. Transport spending by degree of urbanisation in 2005 (% of total spending)
Figure 20. Household spending structure by degree of urbanization in 2005
0
5
10
15
20
25
Slv
il r
y
reece
E
-27
r
y
y
rs
li
en
ark
zc
lic
Fr
c
Fil
ry
rt
l
Slvki
it
i
S
i
nitesStates
stri It
l
SL
tvi
L
x
r
l
ri
r
ti
Esti
%
Sparsely populated
area
Intermediate
urbanized area
Densely-populated
area
x1.04
x1.1
x1.7
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Transport service s
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
De nse ly-populated Inte rme diate urbanize d Sparsely populated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
q1
41 43 41
4547 49
14 10 10
Densely pop Interm Sparsely pop
27 30 25
64 64 72
9 6 4
Central city Other urban Rural
16 22 20 20 22
44
54 58 6062
4025 22 20
15
Maj c ity Midd le c i Smal l A Smal l B Vi ll age
Transport services
Operation of
vehicles
Purchase of
vehicles
EU-27 United States Japan
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
15/17
15
Fact 10. Transport spending is rapidly increasing in China
In China, recent years have seen a rapid increase in the share of transport spending in total
household expenditure. Data is not available for rural areas for transport alone, but the combined
transport and communications category shows increase over time. Transport spending of households(as of total spending) in urban areas has increased from 5.4% in 2004 to 7.2% in 2008 (Figure 21).
Figure 22 also shows that the increase in urban transport spending has been a pattern repeated
almost across China.
Figure 21. Household spending on transport in China (% of total)
Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.
Figure 22. Transport spending (% of total) in urban China 2004 and 2008
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Rural 1999 Rural 2004 Rural 2008 Urban 2004Urban 2008
Transport
Transport and Communications
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Urban 2004
Urban 2008
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
16/17
16
The share of transport in household spending increases with welfare, as argued already in the
stylized fact No. 3. The highest income households spend 2.4 times more on transport and
communications (as a share of total spending) than the lowest income households (Figure 23).
Furthermore, in higher income families, the spending on transport and communications increasesproportionally more than for any other consumption item (Figure 24).
Figure 23. Household transport and communications spending by income group
in urban China in 2008
Figure 24. Strucuture of household spending by income in China in 2008
(% of total spending)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
Lowest income
(first decile)
Low income
(second decile)
Low middle
(second
quintile)
Middle (third
quintile)
Upper middle
(fourth
quintile)
High income
(ninth decile)
Higest income
(tenth decile)
48.1
37.9
29.2
7.6
12.6
18.5
9.4
12.114.7
7.17.0
5.9
8.810.4
9.8
12.310.2
9.9
4.26.2
7.1
2.5 3.7 4.9
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Lowest income Average Highest income
Miscellaneous Goods and Services
Household Facilities, Articles and Services
Residence
Clothing
Health Care and Medical Services
Education, Cultural and Recreation Services
Transport and Communications
Food
-
7/30/2019 OECD_ITF_Kauppila_2011_SP201101_Ten Stylised Facts About Household Spending on Transport
17/17
17
SOURCES
National data
China: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Available at:
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/
EU27: Eurostat, Consumption expenditure of private households. Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
Mexico: INEGI Household consumption survey. Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia Mexico.
Available at :http://www.inegi.org.mx/
Japan: Statistics Bureau Family Income and Expenditure Survey. Available at:
http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htm
United States: BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labour Statistics. Avialable at:
http://www.bls.gov/cex/
Other readings
Brookings (2006), The Affordability Index: A new Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a
Housing Choice, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, January 2006.
Ferdous et al (2010), A Comprehensive Analysis of Household Transportation Expenditurs Relative toOther Goods and Services: An Application to United States Consumer Expenditure Data.
Glaeser et al (2008), Why do the poor live in cities? The role of public transportation, Journal of
urban Economics 63 (2008), pp. 1-24.
Harington et al (2008), Obesogenic island: the financial burden of private transport on low-income
households, Journal of Public Health, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp 38-44.
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://www.inegi.org.mx/http://www.inegi.org.mx/http://www.inegi.org.mx/http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htmhttp://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/cex/http://www.bls.gov/cex/http://www.bls.gov/cex/http://www.stat.go.jp/English/data/kakei/index.htmhttp://www.inegi.org.mx/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_databasehttp://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/